Trials
The most famous show-trials, the so-called "trial of three", "trial of nine" and "trial of ten" began in September and October 1956. For the prosecutors, the objectives were clear: produce evidence to the political assessments of the events formulated by the central party and state authorities; demonstrate that people's state has no intention of punishing anyone for participating in the strike and demonstration; maintain such legal qualification of charges that would ensure long-term sentences. Group indictments were structured in such fashion so that the group leader was a "criminal" - a "hooligan", or a person with a criminal record - thus putting other co-defendants in bad light. It was a method of concealing the fact that a vast majority of defendants were young Poznań workers. At the same time, the prosecutors in all trials attempted at demonstrating two currents of events: 'the hooligan one' and "the peaceful and working class one', the representatives of the former being now brought to justice.
The task facing the defenders was incredibly difficult: they had to prepare within seven days the defense of persons, against which repressive communist state had been developing indictments for more than two months. The Poznań barristers have teamed up to provide defense for free or upon a low charge, thus enabling each of the defendants to have a defender of his own choice.
The Poznań trials ended with relatively lenient sentences, considering those times. The defenders managed to change the legal qualification of the offences, and owing to the presence of representatives of international public opinion, Poznań barristers had the possibility of providing genuine defence to the defendants. Many expert sociologist and psychiatrist opinions' were quoted; arguments derived from the crowd psychology were used. Some cases of beating and extorting depositions from the defendants were revealed. And the most important thing - it was irrefutably proven that the first tragic shots which triggered the outburst of violence were fired by the Security Office employees. The uncompromising attitude of barristers who spoke in harsh words during trials against the Security Office and criticized the then authorities was met with severe repressions. Despite the initiated October "thaw', the people's state refused to tolerate intellectuals who opposed it.